Biden has completely obliterated woman’s sex based protections as he said he would do.

[yourfaceisaforeignfood]

www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-preventing-and-combating-discrimination-on-basis-of-gender-identity-or-sexual-orientation/

“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports."

Biden just passed all the worst parts of the Equality Act by executive order (so without going through any legislation at all). It is limited in effect to agencies (I think) but those agencies include the Bureau of Prisons, Dept of Housing and Urban Development, Dept of Education, Dept of Labor etc

This will of course be unchallenged, even welcomed by the media. It will likely have a knock on effect around the world.

And I am so angry. So so angry. He was never the ‘least worst option’ he is the absolute worst option.

As Abigail Shriner says
twitter.com/abigailshrier/status/1352121732723666946?s=21

Confusing when words don't have meanings isn't it...

@Glenthebattleostrich

Biden is worse than trump. At least trump owned who he is. It's a shame no one will look closely at why creepy uncle joe is so determined to stop women and children having safe spaces and it is telling this is his first act.

The planet Mars is that way >>>>>>

how is abortion a mens right?

You know how.

In this new world, men have uteruses. The law recognises this. Men get pregnant. Women have penises. Both men and women need abortions. Both men and women don't need abortions. How does the law recognise and name the bodily, biological class of people within all humans that need abortions? How does it distinguish them from the sex class that doesn't?

It doesn't.

A man is now a human of either sex.
A woman is now a human of either sex.
Identities possess those labels now.

There are no words for the only sex class that once fought for, owned, and needs to safeguard those rights to their own bodies.
There is no legal recognition or word for those people with those bodies. Not any more.

@nauticant

Some clarification about challenging Executive Orders:

Congress may try to overturn an executive order by passing a bill that blocks it. But the president can veto that bill. Congress would then need to override that veto to pass the bill. Also, the Supreme Court can declare an executive order unconstitutional.

www.usa.gov/how-laws-are-made#item-35862

Obviously Congress will be a no-go for the foreseeable future so it looks like any challenge would have to go up to the Supreme Court.

Thank you for that clarification.

Nice side step though

That is what's happening.

Because ''men can get pregnant''. (Yes, we know it's because they're transmen and female, but they're recognised as just men.) So who can get pregnant? Men and women, therefore, now that Biden has wiped out sex, abortion rights are men's rights too.

It's also fine to discriminate against a breastfeeding mother-it's not sex discrimination because ''men can breastfeed too''.

It won’t be the women in Biden’s family who lose out on scholarships/jobs or will share prison cells rapists

Which is probably why it didn't occur to them to point out the very many pitfalls. Privilege seems to protect the few from knowing how it might feel to share a cell in a prison with a rapist, or to no longer compete in a chosen sport fairly and all the rest. I have just explained this to my dds, and they are pretty much horrified, and immediately asked if the same can happen here? I can not say for sure it won't very sadly.

Women's rights now are under threat everywhere as far as I concerned.

Horizon clearly knows different Americans.

There are green shoots including some of the coverage Abigail Shriner has receive, and indeed New Yorker coverage of the Keira case.

When I was in the US a couple of years back was talking about the GRA reform debate and the person I was talking to was amazed. She was a teacher in a suburban Catholic High School, and they had had some very real problems around changing rooms, safeguarding and girl's dignity. But were not allowed to say anything. Women in a position of responsibility are not allowed to protect girls in their care. She was clearly fuming. And impressed that we Brits were pushing back.

I doubt Biden has given it much thought. It seems an easy win. He pleases some key constituents/donors. Its a bit like Theresa May proposing reform of the GRA.

Sadly the US is less united and any attempt to push back is likely to increase divisions. Instead those women and girls, frustrated at their inability to protect the most vulnerable will have to pick sides. Democrats who don't care for women, or Republicans who don't care for women.

Whilst on the subject I see that the Mail is slapping down Lisa Nandy for her fangirl welcome of Biden's announcement:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9171265/Labour-MPs-slam-touch-Lisa-Nandy-woke-comments.html#socialLinks

I am wondering about how commited Biden is to this cause. He previously claimed trans rights were the biggest civil rights issue of our time but not much mention of them in his opening address. He has passed an executive order but this can be challenged in courts. The real test of his mettle will be his reaction if it goes against him. Does he really have stomach for this fight? Or will he just shrug his shoulders and move on.

@HecatesCats

Ok, so nothing specific about sports or prisons in this one, more lining it with his general intention.

From what I can see this EO is about housing and workplace discrimination, which is a good thing I think (mostly, though there are some situation where it may cause concern).

It's what's possible to come that's more concerning right? In terms of the specific effect of this specific EO?

I'm as GC as they come, I just want to make sure we are very clear about the specific effects of specific enactments...

Because ''men can get pregnant''. (Yes,weknow it's because they're transmen and female, but they're recognised as just men.) So who can get pregnant? Men and women, therefore, now that Biden has wiped out sex, abortion rights are men's rights too

Its hard to argue In stuff that's not true isn't it because you can't keep up with what lies you are supposed to believe and argue for.

Glad there are good things and I do think sometimes we tend to jump up and down and not read carefully. I know this is because we're worried about the implications but most of us do want fairness. Well, I certainly do.
As for being held in the female estate. Just watch how many men are going to jump on that band waggon, and see what the Prisons say.
Babyboom the danger of waffle is that in the UK, Stonewall and the TRA's have taken advantage and screwed us over before we knew what was happening.....be warned, watch carefully

He has passed an executive order but this can be challenged in courts. The real test of his mettle will be his reaction if it goes against him

By then he might have given it a little more than a passing thought, and reconsider his position Zana? Or is that just pure optimism?

After all does Biden really want to go down in history as the first American President in the 21st century to strip women of their rights?

After all does Biden really want to go down in history as the first American President in the 21st century to strip women of their rights?

After all does Harris really want to go down in history as the first woman VP and on day one stripped women of their rights?

When they say American politics is broken, now I know what they really mean. It no longer represents 50% of the country, and if we count those from BAME communities perhaps that percentage is even higher.

Women have no voice in America, not in the policies or politics, not in the MS media. They are totally muzzled, and they do not even appear to be wholly aware of it on a conscious level. Brainwashed by progressive politics into giving away such precious rights that they fought so hard to have in the first place.

It is not an exaggeration to say I am feeling genuine anguish about this.

Lol so much for being unifying

uppity

Quite! I just wonder if does end up being a huge and very public court battle, will it then force the conversation into the public arena, and therefore ensure everyone considers their position on this issue in the process. Particular when evidence is given of the potential damage this will cause to women and girls.
It may indeed be very bad for Biden and Harris to continue to support the EO when it is subject to proper public scrutiny?

Either way it is a fight Biden could do without given the division that exists already, covid and all the other fires that are raging in the background. To do this on day one is a firing shot I fear, and one he won't row back from.

[quote Babyboomtastic]@HecatesCats

Ok, so nothing specific about sports or prisons in this one, more lining it with his general intention.

From what I can see this EO is about housing and workplace discrimination, which is a good thing I think (mostly, though there are some situation where it may cause concern).

It's what's possible to come that's more concerning right? In terms of the specific effect of this specific EO?

I'm as GC as they come, I just want to make sure we are very clear about the specific effects of specific enactments...[/quote]
In section one it says:

"Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports."

So specifically referring to sports and public toilets. In the states (as we have seen with Stonewall here) there has been a very successful drive to embed these policies in schools and in relation to children. It is emotive to not give poor little children then rights they need isn't it? The result is wholesale changes in wider society starting in educational establishments. Parents in the us say that this has also been enshrined in schools under anti-bullying policy so when parents contest they are accused of pushing back against protections for kids. The wording here is of a similar tone.

Jan Gooding ex of Stonewall in the leaked transcript of her webinar spoke of how they intend to push ahead with promoting stonewall's agenda in schools by winning over governors and staff and bypassing parents, so that things like "gender neutral toilets" can be more widely introduced. They're re-educating a generation. This is the modus operandi.

So much effort being put into allowing males into female toilets.

OK..... how is abortion a mens right?

What is a man, and what is a woman? What are the definitions of those two words?

Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports

But the girl children who will be denied access to the locker/rest room because they don’t want to share with the other sex/no longer can get onto sports teams/have safe and fair sport..?

Well no one gives a shit about these children.

Interesting what these girl children have in common which the EA completely ignores.

I have a question, and please please I'm not trying to hijack or goad or distract etc. I'm not a transally and haven't been tasked to disrupt FWR threads! This is a genuine question - specific to abortion rights:

@Barracker you said this: Abortion is not a woman's right, if the law believes it is also a man's right. Who are the right holders under the law? Both men and women. All humans. Who can legally claim an interest in that right? All humans. How to legally distinguish between those that need and can exercise the right, and those who do not, and cannot?

I'm not sure what this actually means. So a woman becomes pg, wants an abortion and has the right to have one. As men don't get pg they would never be in a position to want an abortion and will never need one.

Is it that the problem comes when a couple become pg, and the woman wants an abortion and the man doesn't? They both have the right to have an abortion but only the woman needs one - presumably the man just has to suck it up as he does now (I know there's been at least one case where the man tried to force the woman to continue with her unwanted pg, but I can't remember what the outcome was - I think he lost.)

Is the problem when the man doesn't want a child but the woman does? So he has a right have an abortion, but as he's not pg he can't have one. His right to force the woman to continue with the pg is the same as it is now and unaffected/not relevant to abortion rights.

I am very far from being a transally, but I do wonder if it isn't wasting energy (and thus losing attention) if we worry about a thing which in reality will have no real effect.

I also pretty sure that I don't know enough and that there are implications to this of which I'm utterly unaware.

Does anyone have any inkling why Biden has done this? Is it because he hates women and wants to remove their legal rights as a distinct class of people? Or is he too stupid to understand that that's what he's done - in which case that suggests all his advisers, including his VP, are also too stupid to understand it.

I just don't get it.

Sorry, x posted. Took me far too long to type all that.

He previously claimed trans rights were the biggest civil rights issue of our time

Such a ridiculous statement, in the context of everything else that's going on. Pure virtue signalling and playing to the TRAs and the woke crowd with their luxury beliefs.

Jux

Abortion can't be a 'women's' right, if women are no longer identified as a sex any longer. It becomes a human right, because women are no longer able to identify as women?

Do you understand the abortion point now?
If women do not exist as a sex, how can they have any rights?